Agenda item

Rose explained that a review of the definitive map was required this year as it was ten years since the last consolidation.  This process  would involve including the changes which had been made and confirmed via modification orders since January 2013 including path diversions, creations, and closures.  The high priority PRoW issues which had been identified were included in Appendix 4 of the agenda reports pack.  Some of these would be run through in the meeting to consult members on how to take the actions forward.

As part of this review work, changes were identified for 68% of PRoWs that were visited.  These were mostly minor changes such as changing the road names or where pubs were no longer there.  For those changes which did not involve a change of status (such as changing footpaths to bridleways), a modification order was not needed to change the definitive statement. 

Rose had been preparing a report to go to the Executive Director to approve the process for consolidating all changes made by modification orders, and amendments and corrections not requiring a modification order.  Graham added that the modification orders for the high priority changes would have to be published and at that point there would be a period of public consultation before changes came into effect.  There was no process to consult on minor changes as they were factual changes.  Rose proposed that all the changes that had been made could be added as an Appendix to future agendas.

Colin highlighted that the south-east end of Crowthorne BR14 did not follow the route on the definitive map.  Rose agreed to update her records to investigate this.  (Action: Rose Wicks)

Binfield FP2

Richard Mosses explained that unofficial fencing had been installed, diverting the path around the field to the east (Bottle Lane).  This followed a horse putting its foot through the bridge meaning that the bridge had to be replaced and the fence was installed to prevent horses getting to the bridge.  Rose explained that the proposed action was to contact the landowner to apply for a diversion order.  LCAF supported the proposal but highlighted that it would need to be made clear to the landowner that they were still responsible to retain the width of the path by maintaining the hedge, and that it would be inspected regularly.  Rose added that a clause could be added to the modification order if required. 

Binfield FP11

Graham explained that the footpath had been partly absorbed into the tarmac on the Amen Corner North development.  The road was part of the adoptable highway from 11 Attlee Way to opposite flats 9 to 33 Ellwood Fields.  The original intention was to divert the footpath to the woodland buffer zone, but a complication was that part of the land had to be returned to the original landowner without any additional legal incumbrances.  A PRoW running across that land would be considered a legal incumbrance, which had stalled efforts to divert the path.  Considering these points, it was highly unlikely a footpath diversion would go ahead and the legal line of the footpath would continue along the original route.  There would still be a physical path to provide access, but it would not be a designated PRoW.  The development had not been transferred to BFC yet. 

Richard Mosses noted that the pathway was not well-maintained.  Graham explained that developers had a responsibility to maintain and would follow this matter up with them.  (Action: Graham Pockett).

Colin suggested that LCAF could make a site visit later in the year.  Rob added that the northern section of Binfield FP11 had some waterlogging issues which Rob was currently investigating along with the drainage engineer and working with Binfield Parish Council to resolve.  (Action: Rob Solomon).

Binfield FP14

Graham shared that the section which went along the borough boundary was inaccessible.  This was also feedback received via Richard Mosses.  FP14 and 15 were within the Amen Corner South development and parts of the footpaths were due to be diverted in some places and incorporated in the layout elsewhere.  The proposed Public Open Space (POS) included a FP14 diversion.  The POS was physically in Wokingham but was part of the Bracknell development so would be transferred to BFC to maintain.  The path would still be under the jurisdiction of Wokingham so there could be an agreement between the two authorities as to how to manage the maintenance. 

Regarding FP37 at the other end of the development, Wokingham Borough Council had requested that it be surfaced by the developers as wear and tear would increase.  The developers wanted to surface another path running parallel in the open space, linking it back into the footpath rather than surfacing both paths.  Therefore, Wokingham had objected to the current proposals.  

A diversion would not be automatically approved by planning application.  However, if planning permission made the diversion necessary in order to enact the application, there was a mechanism under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to create a diversion, working in a parallel way to the process under the Highways Act 1980.  A Temporary Traffic Regulation Order could be made for up to 6 months to close the right of way or to make a temporary path so that there was still a way through for pedestrians. 

Colin asked for LCAF to be kept informed about anything happening on that site.  Colin suggested that BFC could liaise with Wokingham Borough Council about how to improve the whole area and Colin would be happy to participate in those conversations.

Binfield BR23A – stopping up order

Graham explained that the 2006 edition of the RoWIP (prior to the 2017-2027 plan) highlighted Binfield BR23A as an anomaly as it was a short dead-end bridleway cut-off by the M4.  Therefore, the proposal was to make a stopping up order and establishing a new public footpath (Mosses path).

Bracknell FP7

Rose explained that Bracknell FP7 crossed Downshire Way, where it emerged from Frog Lane.  There was likely to have been a historic connection to Old Bracknell Road.  BFC officers had proposed doing a modification order to reduce the length of the footpath before it crossed the busy Downshire Way, where there was currently no formal access provided.  There were no objections from the LCAF. 

Sandhurst FP5

Rose explained that Sandhurst FP5 cut through the middle of a property, so a modification order was required to correct it to follow the line of the adopted footway.  The line also needed to follow the steps and the path shown on the OS base-map.  The resident affected would be consulted on this matter.